Communications - The Honourable Percy E. Downe

Back

Written Questions Tabled in the Senate Chamber
by Senator Downe, 41st Parliament, 1st Session

May 1, 2012—With respect to possible tax evasion in Switzerland:

In 2009, French authorities received information about 80,000 bank accounts in Switzerland, many of which were opened by French citizens in order to avoid paying taxes owed to the French state.

France has since reported that it has recovered millions in unpaid taxes.

French authorities then provided the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) with a list of 1700 Canadians who held accounts in Switzerland ± many of these thought to be secret, undeclared bank accounts.

In April, 2012, a story on CBC's The National regarding overseas tax evasion reported that 84 of the 1700 Canadians with accounts in Switzerland had come forward voluntarily to the CRA because they thought their names were likely on the list given to the Government.

In light of this, would the Government of Canada please answer the following questions:

1. Of the over 1700 names of Canadians given to the CRA, how many have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland?

2. How much money has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these secret bank accounts in Switzerland:

(a) In unpaid taxes;

(b) In interest;

(c) In fines; and

(d) In penalties?

3. How much of the money in (2) has been collected in unpaid taxes, interest, fines and penalties?

4. How many of the cases are under appeal?

5. How many cases remain open?

6. How many more cases does the CRA anticipate will be opened?

7. How many cases have been closed (i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected)?

8. How much money has been collected from cases in (7):

(a) In unpaid taxes;

(b) In interest;

(c) In fines; and

(d) In penalties?

9. How many account holders in the cases have made partial payment?

10. Of the partial payments made:

(a) What was the largest amount;

(b) What was the smallest amount; and

(c) What was the average amount?

11. How many of the identified Canadians with bank accounts in Switzerland:

(a) Have had their account(s) audited;

(b) Have not had their accounts(s) audited;

(c) Have had their account(s) reassessed;

(d) Have not had their account(s) reassessed;

(e) Have been the subject of a compliance action; and

(f) Have not been the subject of a compliance action.

12. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Switzerland have availed themselves of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the CRA?

13. How many tax evasion charges have been laid?

14. How many of the over 1700 Canadians found to have accounts in Switzerland have been charged with tax evasion?

May 1, 2012—With respect to possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein:

Four years ago, the Government of Germany provided the Canadian Government with a list of names of 106 Canadians with secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein. The information the Canada Revenue Agency was handed showed that the amounts in Canadian-held Liechtenstein bank accounts totalled over $100 million, ranging from a minimum of $500,000 — to one account with over $12 million.

Since then, there has been a lot of tough talk from this "tough on crime'' Government, but not much action. As of 2011, not one of those overseas tax cheats had been charged.

In light of this, would the Government of Canada please answer the following questions as of April 25, 2012:

1. Since receiving the names of 106 Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein:

(a) Have any other Canadians been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Liechtenstein;

(b) In total, how many Canadians have now been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Liechtenstein?

2. How much money has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) assessed as a result of investigating these secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein:

(a) In unpaid taxes;

(b) In interest;

(c) In fines; and

(d) In penalties?

3. How much of the money in (2) has been collected in unpaid taxes, interest, fines and penalties?

4. How many of the cases are under appeal?

5. How many cases remain open?

6. How many more cases does the CRA anticipate will be opened?

7. How many cases have been closed (i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected)?

8. How much money has been collected from cases in (7):

(a) In unpaid taxes;

(b) In interest;

(c) In fines; and

(d) In penalties?

9. How many account holders in the cases have made partial payment?

10. Of the partial payments made:

(a) What was the largest amount;

(b) What was the smallest amount; and

(c) What was the average amount?

11. How many of the identified Canadians with bank accounts in Liechtenstein:

(a) Have had their account(s) audited;

(b) Have not had their accounts(s) audited;

(c) Have had their account(s) reassessed;

(d) Have not had their account(s) reassessed;

(e) Have been the subject of a compliance action; and

(f) Have not been the subject of a compliance action.

12. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein have availed themselves of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the CRA?

13. How many tax evasion charges have been laid?

14. How many of the 106 Canadians found to have accounts in Liechtenstein have been charged?

May 1, 2012—With respect to tax information exchange agreements and answers to Written Questions tabled in the Senate:

For some time now, the Conservative Government has faced inquiries regarding its inaction on overseas tax evasion and has been totally unforthcoming in responses to questions asked in Parliament pertaining to 1700 Canadians with secret bank accounts in Switzerland discovered by the Government of France.

Questions about these overseas tax cheats with accounts in Switzerland have gone unanswered in Parliament, including this question asked in the Senate:

From the information received from the Government of France, would the Canadian Government provide the following:

How many identified Canadians with accounts outside of Canada have availed of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the Canada Revenue Agency?

Revenue Minister Gail Shea tabled the following answer to my written question:

The Canada Revenue Agency has an obligation to follow confidentiality and privacy legislation closely. Information is often provided to the CRA from various sources on the basis that it cannot be further disclosed by the CRA. Where the CRA is at liberty to provide information it will endeavour to do so; in other instances, it will be limited in this ability.

In order to both respect confidentiality requirements and harmonious international relations, the CRA must adhere to the requirements that international tax treaties and agreements impose on the disclosure of information received from Canada's treaty partners.

In the preamble to the above-noted question, it asserts that the information was provided to Canada from the Government of France. The information to which the question refers was received by the Government of Canada via an international tax treaty. As such, the information is protected under both the Exchange of Information article of the relevant tax treaty (in this case, Article 26 of the Canada-France Income Tax Convention) and paragraph 19. (1)(a) of the Privacy Act.

Therefore, for the reasons cited above, the information as requested cannot be shared.

Remarkably, in a report about overseas tax evasion by Diana Swain on Thursday, April 5th, 2012, broadcast of CBC's The National, Swain reported that:

"National Revenue Minister Gail Shea's office, late today, said they dismiss that. . . They point to 19 agreements signed in the past two years with countries around the world to try to get rid of these tax schemes. And they say that since this list came out, 84 Canadians have ante'd up through Voluntary Disclosure - $18 million in unpaid taxes.''

Information that had been requested in Parliament, information that had been withheld for confidentiality, privacy, and diplomatic reasons, was suddenly made available by the Minister of National Revenue for the nightly news.

In light of this, would the Government of Canada please answer the following questions:

1. Why did provisions of the Canada-France Income Tax Convention preclude the Government from answering Written Questions on the Order Papers in Parliament regarding possible tax evasion in Switzerland, but the Agreement Between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the Avoidance of Double Taxation With Respect to Taxes on Income and Certain Other Taxes, the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion and the Assistance in Tax Matters did not prevent the Government of Canada from answering nearly identical Written Questions on the Order Papers in Parliament regarding possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein?

2. Why did Revenue Minister Shea's office inform the CBC that 84 Canadians with accounts in Switzerland who thought they were likely on the list of names that CRA received from French authorities had voluntarily come forward to the Agency, but at the same time decline to answer the question "how many identified Canadians with accounts outside of Canada have availed of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)?'' that was part of a Written Question in the Senate regarding cases of possible tax evasion and the information the Government of Canada had obtained from French authorities regarding 1700 Canadians with secret bank accounts in Switzerland?

3. Why did the Government decide to keep Parliamentarians in the dark and refuse to answer questions, hiding behind tax treaties?

May 1, 2012—With respect to staffing at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC):

According to figures provided by the government's Treasury Board Secretariat, federal government employment in Atlantic Canada shrank by 430 jobs between 2009 and 2011; and, yet, during that same time period, federal government employment increased by over 5% in the Ottawa area and 3% nationwide.

Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), which has its headquarters in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, plays an integral role in the economy of the province. In 2012, VAC had 1,339 full-time employees located on PEI and an annual payroll in the province of $100 million. The cuts announced in the recent budget will result in 800 lost jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada. By contrast, organizations like Royal Canadian Legion want Canada to follow the example set by the Obama administration in the United States by promising to make the Department of Veterans Affairs exempt from reductions in government spending. As President Obama said in an address to the American Legion on August 30, 2011:

"As a nation, we're facing some tough choices as we put our fiscal house in order. But I want to be absolutely clear: We cannot, we must not, we will not, balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. As Commander-in-Chief, I won't allow it.''

In light of this, would the Government of Canada please answer the following questions:

1. How many persons were employed by VAC in Prince Edward Island for the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, broken down by:

(a) Full-time employees;

(b) Part-time employees;

(c) Term contract employees; and

(d) Student contract employees?

2. What is the breakdown showing the deployment of VAC staff (by percentage) in the Departmental Headquarters in Ottawa and Charlottetown, regional, sub-regional, and district offices across Canada?

3. What was the total remuneration for VAC employees in Prince Edward Island for the same periods in (1)?

April 26, 2012—With respect to Treasury Board numbers for public sector employees as of March 31, 2012:

1. What is the number of public sector employees broken down by region for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

2. For the answers in (1), what are the numbers in each region broken down by:

(a) Indeterminate;

(b) Specified term;

(c) Casual; and

(d) Student employees?

April 26, 2012—With respect to the Canadian Forces Reserves:

While the primary role of the Reserve Force is to augment, sustain, and support the Regular Force at home and abroad, it is important to note the valuable impact that the Reserve Force has on the lives many Canadians, particularly our youth.

Many young Reservists are future leaders of Canada who are pursuing university or college education. These young people join the Reserve Force and learn valuable technical and leadership skills, while benefiting from part-time employment.

Many Reserve Force members serve overseas as part of Canada's response to disasters, such as the earthquake in Haiti, or as part of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. In the past, up to 40 percent of all peacekeepers have been reservists.

In light of this, would the Government of Canada please answer the following:

A. What is the amount spent on the Reserves, broken down by province and territory, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2009. 2010, 2011, and 2012?

B. What is the number of Reservists working full-time, broken down by province and territory, for the same periods as in (A)?

C. What is the number of reservists working part-time, broken down by province and territory, for the same periods as in (A)?

April 26, 2012—With respect to negotiation of a tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement between Canada and Liechtenstein:

Since the Liechtenstein tax evasion scandal surfaced in 2008, no less than 20 countries have concluded tax information exchange agreements with Liechtenstein in an effort to keep tabs on their citizens' tax avoidance tricks. The United States, the UK, Australia, France, and Germany have all signed agreements. Even Antigua, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Andorra, and the Faroe Islands — a self-governing territory of Denmark consisting of 18 islands in the North Atlantic Sea, and with a population of 50,000 — have signed tax information exchange agreements with Liechtenstein, but Canada has yet to conclude its negotiations and sign an agreement.

If all these other countries, big and small, can conclude a deal so quickly, what's taking Canada years to get this done? By comparison to even some of the world's smallest countries, Canada's response to the Liechtenstein tax scandal can be described as a "laissez-faire'' approach at best. The question is why?

In light of this, would the Government of Canada please answer the following questions:

A. On what date did Canada enter into negotiations with Liechtenstein for this agreement?

B. What departments are responsible for negotiation and implementation of the agreement?

C. On what date will the negotiations be completed?

D. On what date will the agreement be implemented?

E. Prior to these negotiations, had the Government of Canada ever approached Liechtenstein about negotiating a tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement?

April 26, 2012—With respect to Canadians discovered to have secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein and the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP):

Four years ago, the Government of Germany gave the Canadian Government a list containing the names of 106 Canadians with hidden bank accounts containing over $100 million in Liechtenstein. In 2009, the Government was asked in Parliament if any of the 106 had — or were eligible to — take advantage of the Voluntary Disclosures Program. The Government's response was:

The voluntary disclosures program, VDP, promotes compliance by encouraging taxpayers to voluntarily correct previous omissions in their dealings with the CRA. A requirement of the VDP is that taxpayers must make a full disclosure before the CRA commences any compliance action or investigation. If they do so, they may only have to pay the taxes owing, plus interest, but not face penalties or prosecution in the courts.

As compliance action has been commenced on all of the listed taxpayers, they are no longer eligible for consideration under the VDP.

The following year, however, the Government had changed its policy and, with no explanation, advised Parliament:

As of June 10, 2010, 20 residents of Canada who have accounts in Liechtenstein had availed themselves of the CRA's Voluntary Disclosures Program.

CRA's own definition of voluntary disclosures disqualifies circumstances where the taxpayer was aware of, or had knowledge of an audit, investigation, or other enforcement action set to be conducted by the CRA. The CRA has stated on the record that due to the fact that compliance action had been commenced on all of the 106 Canadians discovered to be hiding money in Liechtenstein, none of them were eligible for consideration under the VDP.

In light of this, would the Government of Canada please answer the following:

1. How does the CRA reconcile these two contradictory statements, made to Parliament only a year apart?

2. Who lobbied the CRA, or the Minister of National Revenue, to change the policy?

3. Are there any documents and communications related to this policy change?

4. If the answer to (3) is yes, please provide copies of these documents and communications, including any and all:

(a) Letters;

(b) Emails;

(c) Memoranda;

(d) Briefing notes;

(e) Other documents or communications.

5. How much of a financial benefit did the recipients of this policy change receive (i.e., reduced taxes and penalties)?

6. Since receiving the names of 106 Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein:

(a) How many of the 106 have made an application under the VDP;

(b) How many of these VDP disclosures have been accepted?

7. Who authorized this change in policy after CRA had already declared these Canadians ineligible for the VDP?

8. How often has CRA allowed ineligible individuals with overseas bank accounts to make disclosures under the VDP:

(a) In the past 6 months;

(b) In the past year;

(c) In the past 5 years?

9. Does CRA also make exceptions to the VDP for individuals who are suspected of domestic tax evasion?

10. What percentage of individuals who disclose information to CRA through the VDP:

(a) Are fined;

(b) Are penalized;

(c) Are charged;

(d) Are convicted of tax evasion;

(e) Are placed under house arrest;

(f) Are sent to jail?

December 15, 2011—With respect to the television advertisements Our Veterans Matter, The Pride of Our Country, Veterans' Week Vignette, and other 2011 Veterans' Week television spots:

The Conservatives have spent over $2.55 million dollars announcing promises to veterans at costly public relations and media events since 2006. Why is the Harper Government putting public relations ahead of services for Veterans?

The United States and the United Kingdom have committed to tackling their federal deficits without cutting back the budgets of their Veterans Affairs departments, as they recognize that doing so would negatively impact services provided to veterans and their families.

In light of the fact that the Harper Government will not make the same commitment to trim the deficit without cutting the budget at Veterans Affairs Canada, could the Government of Canada indicate:

(a) how many different advertisements were produced and/or used to promote Veterans'Week in 2011;

(b) what was the total cost (production, airtime, etc.) for the advertisements in (a);

(d) what company or companies produced the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement;

(e) what was the cost of television airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement;

(f) what television channels were the advertisements aired on;

(g) what was the cost of online airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement;

(h) what online platforms were the advertisements aired on, broken down by free media (i.e. posting to YouTube) and fee media (i.e. online commercials); and

(i) what programs or divisions of Veterans Affairs Canada were responsible for

(i) overseeing/coordinating production of the advertisements,

(ii) financing the production of the advertisements,

(iii) financing the purchase of airtime both on television and online?

December 15, 2011—With respect to Canada's liability as a financing member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD):

(a) what is the amount of Canada's unfunded liability;

(b) what is the total amount of Canada's liability; and

November 2, 2011—In the past decade, the number of employees at the Privy Council Office (PCO) has risen from 777 (FY2000-2001) to 1051 (FY2009-2010), an increase of 35%. In spite of that, and for the first time, the Government of Canada decided to hire an outside firm — Odgers Berndtson — to conduct its search for a new Auditor General. This represents an additional cost incurred by the Canadian taxpayer, as well as a break from the previous longstanding procedure of using existing PCO resources to recruit Auditors General.

Why the change? Why, with so many more additional resources at PCO, did this government engage a private headhunting firm to conduct its search? After all, the previous process, without the extra cost of retaining any headhunting firm produced outstanding Auditors General, most recently Sheila Fraser and Denis Desautels.

These questions are particularly relevant because the final candidate for the position proposed does not even meet the Government's publically advertised requirements.

Who selected the headhunting firm?
Was there a competition for the contract?
If so, what was the nature of the competition?
If not, who suggested or recommended Odgers Berndtson?
What was the total cost incurred by the Government of Canada in employing Odgers Berndtson to manage the Auditor General selection process?

October 27, 2011—With respect to the Canada Shipping Act and regulations concerning cruise ships and sewage discharge:

Prince Edward Island (PEI) counts itself among the many provinces that are benefitting from the growing number of cruise lines that have Canadian ports of call. In light of the importance of tourism to the local economy, and mindful of the equally important aquaculture and fisheries industries which rely on the stewardship of our waterways, inquires have been made concerning the growing numbers of cruise ships in Atlantic-Canadian waters.

Could the Government of Canada please indicate:

1. What government department or agency is responsible for enforcing the regulations under the Act?

2. How is compliance with the regulations enforced/monitored?

3. What, if any, are the fines and/or penalties for non-compliance?

4. How many complaints of violations have occurred since the regulations were implemented?

(a) How many of the complaints, if any, have occurred in waters around PEI?

(b) How many of the complaints, if any, have involved cruise ships that have ports of call in PEI?

5. What fines and/or penalties have been imposed with respect to violations in (4.)?

June 23, 2011—With respect to the government decentralization:

A. Could the Government of Canada provide information on proposals prepared from January 1, 2006, to May 31, 2011, regarding the relocation of federal government departments (or parts thereof), agencies and Crown corporations from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?

B. Could the Government of Canada provide information on assessments completed from January 1, 2006, to May 31, 2011, regarding which federal government departments (or parts thereof), agencies or Crown corporations could be relocated from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?

June 23, 2011—With respect to staffing at Veterans Affairs Canada:

Would the Government of Canada indicate the following:

What is the breakdown showing the deployment of Veterans Affairs Canada staff (by percentage) in the Departmental Headquarters in Ottawa and Charlottetown, regional, sub-regional, and district offices across Canada?
What are the names and titles of departmental staff at the EX level and above in the Head Office in Ottawa?
What is the authorized number of employees in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board?
What is the breakdown of the location of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board members and employees in the various regional and/or district offices of Veterans Affairs Canada?

June 23, 2011—With respect to trade agreements:

Canada and the European Union are undertaking negotiations to complete a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The discussion includes provisions for trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement, regulatory cooperation, intellectual property, temporary entry of business persons, competition policy and other related matters, labour and the environment.

However, as negotiators continue their work, Canadians are concerned about the federal government's ability to obtain a strong and effective deal for Canada, as other trade agreements recently negotiated and signed by this Government have included many flaws. For example, despite the clear willingness on the part of Peru to complete trade negotiations with as many countries as possible, the federal government failed to negotiate meaningful provisions to protect the intellectual property rights of Canadians, and further failed to obtain a clause similar to that in the United States-Peru trade agreement that allows United States agricultural exporters to automatically obtain improved trade benefits included in any future trade negotiations Peru makes with other countries. As a result, Canadian beef, pork and potato producers have been left at a competitive disadvantage with other countries, specifically the United States.

This outcome leads to broader questions about Canada's ability to negotiate effective agreements. Although the prosperity of Canada does not depend on the signing of a free trade agreement with Peru, the results reflect the federal government's inability to obtain the strongest possible trade agreements.
Could the Government of Canada please provide the following information:

A. a copy of all documents and analysis comparing the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement with trade agreements Jordan negotiated with other countries;

B. a copy of all documents and analysis comparing the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement with trade agreements Panama negotiated with other countries.

C. What is the number of negotiators, if any, that have been retained from outside of the federal government to represent Canada in current trade negotiations?

D. Has the Government of Canada considered and/or implemented plans to undertake a review of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement in 2014 to evaluate the trade implications for Canada?

June 23, 2011—With respect to Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange defoliant spraying at Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown:

While campaigning in the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper stated: "Our government will stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984.''

On September 12, 2007, the Government announced a disappointing compensation package for those affected by the spraying of Agent Orange, offering payment only to those who served between 1966 and 1967. In order to receive the compensation that was promised to them, and force Prime Minister Stephen Harper to honour his commitment, these deserving Canadian veterans have had to undertake a class action lawsuit against the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada has confirmed that as of March 2010, the Departments of Justice, Health, National Defence, and Veterans Affairs have spent a combined $7.8 million in legal costs fighting against Canadian veterans in this matter.

Would the Government of Canada provide the following information:

A. What is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and June 1, 2011?

B. What is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and June 1, 2011?

C. What is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to June 1, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010 and June 1, 2011?

June 23, 2011—1. Could the Government of Canada provide copies of all receipts and documentation submitted pertaining to expenses for the following personnel at Veterans Affairs Canada for the period January 1st, 2010 to June 22th 2011.

Mary Chaput, Associate Deputy Minister

James Gilbert, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration

Keith Hillier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery Branch

Heather Parry, Assistant Deputy Minister

Peter Yendall, Director General of Communications

2. Could the Government of Canada provide a list of all trips undertaken by the above officials to include

a. dates

b. destinations

c. purposes

d. expenses, broken down by

i. transportation,

ii. accommodations,

iii. per diems

iv. meals, and

v. any and all hospitality

3. Could the Government of Canada provide a detailed list of actual days the above officials worked in Veterans Affairs Canada National Headquarters in Prince Edward Island, and how many days they worked in Ottawa.

June 14, 2011 - With respect to supporting Canada’s airports:

On March 16, 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Ottawa would invest a "significant" amount of money in a project to improve runways and to increase capacity at the Quebec City Jean Lesage International Airport. Earlier, in February, the Government of Canada announced funding for improvements to the Charlottetown airport.
Could the Government of Canada please indicate:

What is the total amount of federal funding being provided to the Jean Lesage Airport in Quebec City?
Under what program(s) was the funding awarded?
What is the total amount of federal funding being provided to the Charlottetown Airport?
Under what program(s) was the funding awarded?

June 14,2011 - With respect to priority hiring:

Since 2005, qualified medically released Canadian Forces (CF) veterans have been eligible for priority employment appointments in the federal public service.

These new provisions have created important future career opportunities for veterans, but unfortunately, there are low participation levels in most federal government departments – participation that is vital in making these opportunities a reality for our injured veterans.

Statistics from the Public Service Commission show that in 2007-2008, 69 percent of medically released veterans using the priority system were appointed to one department, the Department of National Defence. Other departments are only marginally participating in this program, and in that year alone, 67 veterans had their priority appointment status expire without finding a position in the public service.

For the period from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2011:

How many people were hired by the federal public service?

a. How many were term employees?

b. How many were casual employees?

c. How many were indeterminate employees?
How many members of the CF were medically released?

a. How many of these medically released members applied for a priority employment appointment in the federal public service?

b. How many received a priority employment appointment?

c. How many were still on the priority employment list when their eligibility period expired?
How many qualified medically released Canadian Forces veterans were hired by each federal Government department?
What measures are being taken to extend this program to account for the large number of temporary and contract workers employed by the federal Government?

June 14, 2011 - With respect to the new Veterans Charter:

Under the New Veterans Charter, lump sum disability and death benefits awards for amounts up to $285,000 are allowed.

Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:

A. How many eligible recipients received the maximum amount?

B. What is the percentage of eligible recipients who received less than $50,000?

C. What is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $50,000 and $99,000?

D. What is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $100,000 and $149,999?

E. What is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $150,000 and $199,999?

F. What is the percentage of eligible recipients who received between $200,000 and $249,999?

June 3, 2011 - With respect to foreign investment:

Under the auspices of the Investment Canada Act, the Government of Canada must be satisfied that certain cases of foreign investment in Canada (as described in Sec. 14 of the Act) must be of “net benefit” (Sec. 21. (1)) to this country. This decision is based, in part, on “representations and undertakings” (Sec. 23. (1)) made by the proposed investor.

Would the Government of Canada provide the following information for the period of January1, 2006, to May 31, 2011:

How many such applications for investment under the Act has the Government approved?
How many has it rejected?
What measures are in place to ensure that investors live up to the undertakings they made to gain approval?
How many times has the Government withdrawn approval as a result of an investor’s failure to live up to those undertakings?

June 3, 2011 - With respect to CRTC and Telus Communications:

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced an Alternate Case Resolution, whereby Telus made a donation to the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration in lieu of paying Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMP) for violations related to the Do Not Call registry (Richard J. Brennan, “CRTC Gives Telus a Special Deal, Source Says”, Toronto Star, October 28th, 2010).

Would the Government of Canada please provide the following information:

What would have been the maximum possible AMP for the violations alleged to have been committed by Telus
What was the amount Telus agreed to pay the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration?
Why was it decided that Telus should make a donation to the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration as opposed to paying AMPs to the Government of Canada that would benefit all Canadians?
Who made the decision to allow this?
What was the process that led to this decision?
Why was the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration selected to be the recipient of this donation, as opposed to any other institution (for example, Dalhousie University School of Public Administration)?

(a) Are any of the Commissioners, the Secretary General or any staff member of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission currently an instructor, lecturer, part time staff member, or in any other way connected to the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration?

June 3, 2011 - With respect to Possible Tax Evasion:

In 2009, French authorities received information about 80,000 bank accounts in Switzerland, many of which were opened by French citizens in order to avoid paying taxes owed to the French state. France has since reported that it has recovered millions in unpaid taxes. French authorities then advised the Government of Canada of, and provided the names to, 1785 of these Swiss bank accounts held by Canadians.
From the information received from the Government of France, would the Government of Canada provide the following:

A. How many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts outside of Canada?

B. Could the Government of Canada summarize what action, if any, has been taken by Canadian officials to recover unpaid taxes associated with Canadians' undeclared bank accounts outside of Canada?

C. How many identified Canadians with accounts outside of Canada have availed of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)?

D. How many identified Canadians with accounts outside of Canada have settled with the CRA?

E. How much money, including unpaid taxes, fines, etc., has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these secret bank accounts outside of Canada?

F. Regarding Question E., what is the breakdown of the money assessed from the cases, specifically:

a) in unpaid taxes;

b) in interest;

c) in fines; and

d) in penalties?

G. How much of the money has been collected?

H. How many of these cases are under appeal?

I. How many cases remain open?

J. How many more cases does CRA anticipate will be opened?

K. How many of the cases have been closed, i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected?

L. How much money has been collected from those cases;

a) in unpaid taxes;

b) in interest;

c) in fines; and

d) in penalties?

M. How many of the account holders in the cases have made partial payment?

N. Of the partial payments made:

a) What was the largest amount?

b) What was the smallest amount?

c) What was the average amount?

O. With regard to the amount of money contained in the accounts declared or discovered by the CRA:

a) What was the largest amount?

b) What was the smallest amount?

c) What was the average amount?

P. On what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts outside of Canada that were supplied by the Government of France?

Q. On what date did CRA begin its investigation?

R. On what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin?

S. Of the original identified Canadians with bank accounts outside of Canada, how many individuals have had these accounts audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?

T. How many of the account holders have not been audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?

U. How many tax evasion charges were laid?

June 3, 2011 - With respect to the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans’ funeral and burial expenses:

According to the Veterans Ombudsman, the average cost of a funeral in 2008 was $5,892; but the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans’ funerals is set at $3,600, an amount unchanged since 2001.

The Government of Canada currently pays up to $12,700 for the funeral and burial expenses of serving members of the Canadian Forces.

In March 2010, the Minister of Veterans Affairs advised the Senate that the program was being reviewed.

Could the Government of Canada indicate:

A. When does it intend to increase the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program funeral services allowable maximum to an equivalent level established for members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces?

June 3, 2011 - With respect to Veterans and the CRA

A parliamentary committee report entitled Shared Experiences: Comparisons of Veterans Services Offered by Members of the Commonwealth and the G8 recommended:

“…that the Department of Veterans Affairs explore with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the possibility of modifying income tax returns to allow veterans and their families to identify themselves so that they can receive information on the financial benefits and support services available to them.”

CRA has worked with other federal government departments, including Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, to improve program delivery. For example, since 2007, individuals filing income tax returns do not have to re-apply each year to receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Instead, they are identified automatically by CRA based on their reported income.
Could the Government of Canada please indicate:

A. Why has it refused to implement the recommendation found in the committee’s report?

i. What criteria were used in the decision?

ii. What was the policy rationale for the decision?

B. Is the federal government considering any other information sharing arrangements to better identify veterans and their families in order to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled?

June 3, 2011 - With respect to Do Not Call List:

Despite serious issues with the Government of Canada's Do Not Call List initiative, the Conservative Government is continuing to allow anyone, including foreign telemarketers and scam artists, to purchase the Do Not Call List for $180.00 from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website.

As of September 30, 2010, the Federal Government has imposed penalties of $176,000 on telemarketing companies who have violated the rules, but has only collected $9,129; this has led many to believe that the Government has taken minimal action to deal with this problem, and is therefore offering little protection to Canadians who have registered their contact information on the Do No Call List under the pretense that they were going to be protected from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls.

Would the Government of Canada provide the following information with regard to the Do Not Call List up to May 31, 2011:

(a) the total number and dollar value of Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) that have been imposed;

(b) the total number and dollar value of AMPs that have been paid to date;

(c) the total number of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date;

(d) the total number and dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date;

(e) the number of companies who have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement?